I agree with applemcg: starting with Skinner was too much of an introduction to a great mind. It's not as difficult as Buckminster Fuller's writing, where a sentence comprises a paragraph and contains so many modifying clauses, you nearly need to diagram it to be able to extract its meaning. Chomsky really uses language well, delivering thoughts quite directly, and understandably. But Skinner's topic gives today's casual reader more esoteric info than most are willing to wade through - unless that's their field.

A shorter, more easily manageable and digestible example would allow most readers to come up to speed without having to exercise the discipline to persevere through it. Everyone needs to educate himself these days, and I think that a little help in the arrangement of pieces by the editor to "get our feet wet" would be appreciated by nearly everyone.

The purpose of referring to previously written works does a *casual* reader no favors, but then, why read what a mind such as Chomsky's has provided us? True facts can never reference their sources enough; for any student wanting to learn more, or perhaps recall a title long forgotten, the references are a labored gift for which I'm grateful, and will be vital to posterity. This is not Fox News.

I have always been interested in languages, and their paths through time. I learned English grammar in the 6th grade so well, I was able to correct high school teachers and college professors - simply because I had an affinity to syntax rules, and a memory for exceptions, and they didn't. As a computer programmer for over 40 years, I've had little difficulty learning computer languages - except in cases in which a single language inexplicably shifted the syntax prevailing in 95% of that language. The same for asinine computer interfaces created by someone who has so little regard for his fellow man that he devises new rules that reflect nothing that has gone before, simply because he can. An example of this kind of self-centered abuse is Microsoft's Office 2007 interface. Certainly it helps those who have never used it before by hiding commands unlikely to be used. But for the millions who have been accustomed to being productive in these programs for 10-20 years, they're slammed back to square one, and thoroughly frustrated by lost capabilities.

Human-machine interfaces are the most important aspects of any automation. Chomsky's insights into the standards and conventions of languages and their syntaxes can be applied in this endeavor, further flattening the world, and enabling our poorer brothers and sisters around the planet. ( )

Noam Chomsky is considered one of our top “intellectual” writers. This book represents some of the most important writing he has done. All I can say is that, if this is the essential, then I’m glad I skipped the rest of it.

Maybe it is just too intellectual for me, maybe I just didn’t spend the time trying to discern what was being said, but when a collection of “essential” writing starts with three essays discussing what language is, then there is an ensuing uphill battle for my attention that this book did not win.

There is obviously great depth and knowledge to Chomsky’s writing. And there were occasional instances where I stood up and took notice, e.g. some of his writing on Vietnam, his descriptions of the US’s role in East Timor (didn’t even know it existed, did you?). But the obvious agendas in much of the political writing, and the preponderance of referrals to other writings (it feels as if three-quarters to seven-eighths of each essay is the quoting of other sources) left my mind wondering in topics that had nothing to do with what it was reading. (And, never think we get respite from the discussion of language – they crop up again and again.)

For those who love the style, then I’m sure this is a book for you. For those of use who do not, it will not convince us differently. ( )

i've always felt history (and language for that matter) might better be taught in reverse chronological order. arnove would have served chomsky better had he reversed the order of his selections. starting with a critique of skinner was too much. like beginning a hurdle race with the pole vault. ( )